I'm not in the habit of 'copping out' anywhere, but it's silly to accuse me of that in an RPG forum where it could hardly matter less. What would I be 'copping out' on anyway? This isn't a win-lose situation, and I'm not opposed to your suggestions. I think I've engaged in a fair discussion of them, including pointing out that I needed to reconsider them given that they are much simpler than I had thought before.MacLeod wrote:Sounds like a cop out answer to me, sir.Sir Bedivere wrote:Why can't pecan pie taste so delicious and be as healthy as broccoli? The more rules there are, the more you have to focus on mechanics.
All of the D&D-style magic systems I've seen are anti-scientific. There are no general laws that can be applied and there's no particular system or logic to the spells themselves. Magical research creates more unsystematic, particular spells; it does not work toward universal laws of magic that would further explain the magical world. If you make MUs scientific, that's your campaign choice, not the way the class is set up.MacLeod wrote:This isn't necessarily true... the only reason I would penalize a generic MU is because they spend so much time studying magic, a scientific power, as opposed to letting themselves fall in faith and believe in that power.Sir Bedivere wrote:No one but the cleric deals much in religion, so now we should deduct 4 from every other class's Religion Knowledge checks? Much simpler to give the cleric +5 to begin with.
My campaign is essentially an alternate medieval Europe. Since I draw heavily on medieval history, Clerics are the ones most likely to study and practice any kind of science, as they were historically. Also, faith as such is irrelevant in a world where the priests get one or more miracles every day. The existence and power of the gods is proven in verifiable, reliable, rational ways on a daily basis.
Me too, very much. But rules that have setting implications are less likely to be useful in other people's campaigns than universal rules that can be modified to fit into any setting.MacLeod wrote:eh, maybe.Sir Bedivere wrote:If it's going to be a rule, it needs to be pretty universal and not dependent on what might be the case, or on the GM designing his world around it. ...
I like to design rules with setting implications...
On the other hand, it sounds like you have a pretty interesting campaign. Have you thought about putting together a campaign world supplement? You would have a pretty good scope to explore your house rules in their natural setting, for one, and one can never have too many world options, I always say.
